Need advice Served by AA in Texas

[Texas Grandma]

I just got served and what I received does not seem to match anything that anyone else seems to have.

1. Who is the named plaintiff in the suit? AA

2. What is the name of the law firm handling the suit? (should be listed at the top of the complaint.) FF&G

3. How much are you being sued for? <$4000

4. Who is the original creditor? (if not the Plaintiff) BoA

5. How do you know you are being sued? (You were served, right?) Served

6. How were you served? (Mail, In person, Notice on door) In person

7. Was the service legal as required by your state? Yes

8. What was your correspondence (if any) with the people suing you before you think you were being sued? None. They have tried to call me but I have not spoken to anyone.

9. What state and county do you live in? Texas Harris

10. When is the last time you paid on this account? (looking to establish if you are outside of the statute of limitations) First missed payment in Oct. of 08, made other payments but not sure when that was. Account was never brought current.

11. What is the SOL on the debt? 4 years, still within the sol but not by much.

12. What is the status of your case? Suit served? Motions filed? You can find this by a) calling the court or looking it up online (many states have this information posted - when you find the online court site, search by case number or your name). All it says is that the case is active.

13. Have you disputed the debt with the credit bureaus (both the original creditor and the collection agency?) No I have not.

14. Did you request debt validation before the suit was filed? Note: if you haven't sent a debt validation request, don't bother doing this now - it's too late. No I did not.

15. How long do you have to respond to the suit? (This should be in your paperwork). If you don't respond to the lawsuit notice you will lose automatically. In 99% of the cases, they will require you to answer the summons, and each point they are claiming. We need to know what the "charges" are. Please post what they are claiming. Did you receive an interrogatory (questionnaire) regarding the lawsuit?

This is what is confusing. One page says that I have 10 days to answer the petition, and another says that I have 50 days to admit the truth of each of the relevant matters stated in the following list of facts and to the genuineness of each of the relevant documents attached.

16. What evidence did they send with the summons? An affidavit? Statements from the OC? Contract? List anything else they attached as exhibits.

A. Affidavit of Business Records signed by someone that works at AA. I know this because I looked it up and found the person on linkedin.

B. Xeroxed copy of BoA Agreement from 07.

C. Copy of an old account statement with my name and address and the BoA account # blacked out except for the last 4 digits.

D. A bill of sale that does not include any information other that they sold a pool of charged off accounts to AA. Nothing listed.

E. An "invoice" from AA stating that I owe them $XXXX Interestingly it says at the bottom "Not previously mailed".

At the end there is a Certificate of written discovery. It just says Discovery Served and then just lists Plaintiffs Request for disclosures and Plaintiffs Request for admissions.

I have been surfing the forums for a couple of weeks while I was waiting to get served. I knew it was coming because I started receiving ads from lawyers.

I see that others beat these guys and others like them all of the time, mostly because they lack evidence. I am just not sure if I have a leg to stand on since they have the old statement.

I know that the affidavit means nothing because they have to have personal knowledge according to Texas rules. Also, the bill of sale is useless because it does not list my account. That statement worries me.

I have never been through something like this before, and I don't have the money for an attorney. I was hoping to do this myself but I am not so sure now.

Any help and advice is very appreciated.

[texasrocker]

Don't worry too much about the statement- who is to say they didn't find it in a dumpster behind the bank?

Do any of the paragraphs on their original petition say "Account Stated"?

Can you post the exact words of the bill of sale?

[Texas Grandma]

Thank you for answering!

The original petition has 8 paragraphs as follows:

1. Facts

2. Discovery (to be conducted at Level 1)

3. Account Stated

4. Quantum Meruit

5. Breach of Contract

6. Assignment

7. Conditions Precedent

8. The Prayer

The bill of sale says this:

Bill of Sale and Assignment of Loans

The undersigned Assignor (Assignor) on and as of the date hereof hereby absolutely sells, transfers, assigns, sets-over, quitclaims and conveys to AA, an LLC organized under the laws of Delaware (Assignee) without recourse and without representation or warranties of any type, kind, character or nater, express or implied, subject to Buyer's repurchase rights as set forth in Sections 8.1 and 8.2, all of Assignor's right, title and inters in and to each of the loans identified in the Loan Schedule attached hereto (the Loans) together with the right to all principal, interest or other proceeds of any kind with respect to the loans remaining due and owing as of the Cut off date applicable to such Loans as set forth in the loan sale agreement pursuant to which the loans are being sold (including but not limited to proceeds derived from the conversion, voluntary or involuntary, of any of the loans into cash or other liquidated property).

Dated and signed.

Page 2 is Affidavit of sale of accounts

State of Delaware, County for New Castle

So n so being duly sworn deposes and says

I am over 18 and not a party to this action. I am the vice president of fia card services. In the position I am a custodian of the creditors books and records and am aware of the process of the sale and assignment of electronically stored business records.

On or about ---, Fia card services sold a pool of charged off account (the accounts) by a credit card account purchase agreement and a bill of sale to AA.

As part of the sale of accounts, electronic records and other records were transferred on individual accounts to the debt buyer. These records wer kept in th ordinary course of business of fia card services.

I am not aware of any errors in these accounts relating to the account balance as of the closing date of the sale. The above statements are true to the best of my knowledge.

Signed ---

It does not list any accounts or anything. Only thing that has that is the statement from the OC and AA they included.

[TomnTex]

Hit them with arbitration now and make them run for cover.

[texasrocker]

They have already shot themselves in the foot by pleading Account Stated and Quantum Meruit.

Under "Facts" how do they explain that they purchased the account?

[Texas Grandma]

The paragraph reads

This suit is a debt related to a credit account issued by creditor, BoA. The credit account was for holder --- and assigned account number XXXX0000 (credit account). --- incurred a balance on the credit account and failed to pay causing the credit account to be charged off on or around xxx. The post charge off principal amount due, with credits for off set payments and adjustments is <4000. Thereafter, BoA assigned the credit account to AA. --- with ssn xxx000

is the defendant in this suit and can be served with process at the address below

----

[Texas Grandma]

I am new to this and don't know much about it so excuse me if I ask a stupid question.

But what do you mean by they have already shot themselves in the foot over the account stated and the quantum meruit?

[texasrocker]

We can get those pleadings irreversibly tossed out in Texas because of an old Texas Supreme Court ruling that defines types of accounts. They may work in other states but not here.

For your answer:

Do not admit to any item pertaining to the account. The only things you should admit to are your name and address and/or one that may say something about that you are not currently in the military.

Caption your answer exactly the same as the complaint that you were served with. The caption will include the name of the Texas court, names of the parties and the cause number.

Write a brief paragraph stating "Comes now the Defendant and files her Answer in the above-entitled matter and in support thereof states as follows:

The Defendant generally denies, pursuant to Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, each and every, all and singular, of The Plaintiff's allegations.

Create numbered paragraphs correlating to each allegation found in the complaint. For each paragraph state "Defendant denies the allegation found in paragraph one of Plaintiff's Complaint" and so on for each allegation. (You should put "Admit" after one that says your name and address)

Finish the document by stating "Defendant prays that the Court deny The Plaintiff's Complaint and for all other relief just and proper in the premises".

File a Plea to the Jurisdiction at the same time you file your answer. Also file a special exception to their "Account Stated" pleading. You can title it "Defendant's Original Answer, Plea to the Jurisdiction and Special Exceptions"

Copy the following, word-for-word, into the proper court format that I described to you earlier (paragraph headings bold and centered etc.) and file it with the court with your answer:

PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION

Grounds for Dismissal for Lack of Standing

This is a lawsuit arising out of an alleged consumer credit card debt. Plaintiff, is not a financial institution, original creditor, lender, or issuer of any credit card. Instead, Plaintiff alleges "BoA assigned the credit account to AA" See Plaintiff's Original Petition under "Facts". There is no allegation or statement as to who was the seller, and there is no way from these pleadings to determine if Plaintiff purchased the account from anyone in the chain of title, and no way to determine what rights, if any, the Plaintiff has to bring suit.

A plaintiff who seeks to sue based on rights acquired by an assignment must plead and prove up the assignment. Ceraminc Tile Intern., Inc, v. Balusek, 137 S.W3d 722, 724 (Tex. App, – San Antonio 2004, no pet.); Delaney v. Davis, 81 S.W.3d 445, 448-49 (Tex. App, – Houston [14th district] 2002, no pet.). Plaintiff has not done either.

If Plaintiff is the assignee and rightful owner of the debt, this should be very easy for Plaintiff to allege and prove, yet Plaintiff avoids and dodges the issue, when such issues cannot wait until trial. Without a pleading of an assignment and admissible evidence of the assignment, there is no subject matter jurisdiction and this case must be dismissed. Whether plaintiff has standing to bring this lawsuit is a threshold issue that should be resolved at the onset, and the instant plea to the jurisdiction is a proper means by which to address this threshold question.

Legal Standards for a Plea to the Jurisdiction

The purpose of a plea to the jurisdiction is to dismiss a cause of action without regard to whether the underlying claim has merit. Bland ISD v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000). The plea challenges the court's power to adjudicate the subject matter of the controversy. Texas DOT v. Arzate, 159 S.W.3d 188, 190 (Tex.App. – El Paso 2004, no pet.), Axtell v. University of Texas, 69 S.W.3d 261, 263 (Tex.App. – Austin 2002, no pet.).

Standing is a basic requirement of the judicial system and goes directly to the court's subject matter jurisdiction over a case. It may be raised at anytime and, unlike a challenge to a party's capacity to sue, cannot be waived or presumed. Nootsie Ltd. v. Williamson County Appraisal District, 925 S.W.2d 659, 661-662 (Tex. 1996), Continental Coffee Products v. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444 n.2 (Tex, 1996). A plea to the jurisdiction is the proper way to challenge a party's lack of standing. Waco ISD v. Gibson, 22 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. 2000).

The plaintiff must come forward with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is at least an issue of fact as to the existence of jurisdiction. Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 227-228 (Tex. 2004). The court should grant defendant's plea to the jurisdiction because on the face of the petition, it is clear that the plaintiff is not the original creditor, which therefore puts standing at issue and it is certain that this Plaintiff will not come forward with admissible evidence of standing to bring the lawsuit.

(continued below)

Edited November 8, 2012 by texasrocker

[texasrocker]

(continued from above)

SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO ACCOUNT STATED

1. Credit Card Cases Are Based on Express Contracts and Cannot Be Brought On Implied Contract Theories Like Account Stated.

The Texas Supreme Court made clear in Truly v. Austin 744 S.W. 2d 934, 936 (Tex. 1988) that a plaintiff may not avoid the terms of its express contract by seeking recovery on an implied contract theory if the damages claimed are covered by the express contract. Credit card cases brought on an account stated theory violate this Supreme Court holding. Credit Card arrangements are governed by express contracts. The only viable cause of action for breach of a credit card is breach of contract. Implied or quasi-contractual causes of action like an account stated cannot be brought on a credit card debt without violating Truly v. Austin.

Texas courts will not imply the existence of contract where an express contract already exists. Fortune Production Co. v. Conoco, Inc.,52 S.W.3d 671 684 (Tex. 2000), Woodard v. Southwest States, Inc., 384 S.W.2d 674 (Tex 1964), Musick v. Pogue, 330 S.W.2d 696, 699 (Tex. Civ App.- San Antonio 1959, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The reason for this rule, as described by the Supreme Court in Fortune Production, is that parties should be bound by their express agreements. When a valid agreement addresses the matter, a party should not be able to recover more than is provided for in the agreement. Id., 52 S.W.3d at 684. "Count 1" of the Original petition fails to provide fair notice as to how The Plaintiff can avoid this express contract in favor of an account stated.

The principle that a plaintiff should not be able to use an implied contractual theory to recover more than his contract authorizes is particularly applicable to credit card cases. Credit card fees and interest rates are heavily regulated. Federal Law mandates comprehensive disclosures of these terms when the account is opened and when the account is amended. See e.g. 15 U.S.C. § 1637©(1)-(7), 12 C.F.R. 225.5-225.16. Credit card plaintiffs should be able to produce these disclosures or otherwise prove the interest rates and fees that their customers agreed to pay. Using an account stated theory to imply an agreement to pay the interest and fees would improperly relieve plaintiff from establishing the amount of interest and fees that were required to be disclosed to the defendant under Federal law, and must have been included in the terms of its alleged express agreement with the defendant.

2. A Credit Card Account Is Not an Account Stated

A credit card account is not an "account" as that term has been used in the common law governing suits on account. A credit card account does not arise out of a course of dealing between two parties engaging in transactions in goods. A credit card account is a multiparty arrangement. Each transaction involves ata minimum, the debtor, a merchant, the merchant's bank, a clearing organization such as Visa, Mastercard, American Express, the card issuing bank and the card issuing bank's credit card processing unit. Every transaction brings a new merchant and merchant bank into the web of transactions that make up the account, with the result that over the term of a credit card account, hundreds of parties may be involved, not just two as envisioned for a common law account. Moreover, the transactions in a credit card account are not merely sales of goods. The account issuer does not sell goods to the account holder: instead, it makes extensions of credit to the account holder or to third party merchants on the account holder's behalf. For these reasons the cause of action for account stated does not apply to credit cards.

An account stated is merely an open account that has been closed because the party charged has agreed that the account is correct. Whittlesey v. Spofford 47 Tex. 13, (Tex. 1877), Wroten Grain & Lumber v. Mineola Box Mfg. Co., 95 S.W. 744 (Tex Civ. App.-1906), Padgitt Bros. Co. v. Dorsey, 194 S.W. 1124, 1126 Tex Civ. App.- El Paso 1917, no writ). An open account is an implied claim that arises from the course of dealing between two parties who engage in a series of transactions in which title to goods passes from one to the other. McCamant v. Batsell, 59 Tex. 363, 367-369 (Tex 1883), Livingston Ford Mercury, Inc. v. Haley, 997 S.W.2d 425, 427 (Tex App.----Beaumont 199, no writ).

Over a century ago in McCamant v. Batsell, 59 Tex. 363, 1883 WL 9175 (Tex. 1883), a case that has never been overruled, The Supreme Court construed the word “account” as it is used in this context as limited to suits arising out of relationships in which title to goods was transferred from the plaintiff to the defendant and further excluding suits in which the rights of the parties were defined by a written agreement.

In McCamant, a suit on a promissory note, the plaintiff sought to make use of the then existing statute governing suits on account, which like current Rule 185, set up abbreviated procedure for resolving disputes involving such suits. Unlike the current rule the statute did not enumerate the kinds of action that could be brought as suits on account. The Supreme Court construed the meaning of the term “account” in the statute as being consistent with the common law meaning of the term:

“As used in the statutes of this state, in the act referred to, we believe that the word “account” is used in its popular sense, rather than in a technical sense, and that it applies to transactions between persons in which, by sale upon one side and purchases upon the other, the title to personal property passes from one to the other, and the relation of debtor and creditor is thereby created by general course of dealing.”

The Court also ruled that the plaintiff’s suit against the maker of a note and his sureties could not be brought as a suit on account or an open account because it did not arise out of the course of dealings between a buyer and seller, but was based upon a written agreement in which all the terms were fixed and certain. Id., 1883 WL 9175 at 6.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the holding of McCamant in Meaders v. Biskamp, 316 S.W.2d 75 (Tex. 1958), in which The Court distinguished a suit on an account from a suit based upon an express contract for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees. The then applicable language of Tex. Civ. Stat. Art. 2226, the predecessor to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ch. 38 permitted an award of attorney’s fees for a suit upon a sworn account but did not include the present language authorizing fees in a breach of contract case. The Meaders court, citing McCamant held that a suit founded upon a written contract for the drilling of an oil well was not a suit on account because the relationship of debtor and creditor did not arise from a course of dealing but from a contract. Id., 316 S.W.2d at 78

The classic statements of the elements of the account stated cause of action expressly draw a distinction between suits that grow out of a course of dealing and suits that grow out of an express agreement. For example, in Central Nat. Bank of San Angelo v. Cox, 96 S.W.2d 746, 748(Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1936, writ dismissed), the court said:

“The cases are legion on what constitutes an account stated. In general the essential elements involved are: Transactions between the parties which give rise to an indebtedness of one to the other; an agreement, express or implied, between them fixing the amount due; and a promise, express or implied, by the one to be charged, to pay such indebtedness. 1 Tex.Jur. p. 371 et seq.; 1 C.J. 678; 1 Am.Jur. 272; 1 C.J.S., Account Stated, p. 693.”

The first and defining element of the claim is existence of a debtor-creditor relationship that arises from a series of transactions—from a course of dealing, not a contract. This element is identical across all suits on account, whether open, sworn or stated. While the other elements of the claim do reference an agreement, the subject matter of the agreement is not the creation or terms of the debtor-creditor relationship, but the acknowledgement, after the transactions that gave rise to the relationship have occurred, of the amount due and the obligation to pay.

Recent court of appeals decisions allowing a sated account on a credit card have overlooked these Texas Supreme Court authorities and instead are based upon mere dicta from a footnote in a decision out of the Dallas court of appeals. In a footnote in that case, Dulong v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., 261 S.W.3d 890 (Tex.App.----Dallas 2008) the court stated that a sworn account requires the passage of title and is thus not proper tool for a credit card case but noted that it differs from an account stated in this regard. But neither that decision nor any of the other appellate decisions that have followed it have explained how they reached this conclusion. These decisions are utterly devoid of any analysis or legal authority on the issue, and none of them discuss McCamant v. Batsell. These decisions are simply contrary to Texas Supreme Court authority.

SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO QUANTUM MERUIT

Credit Card Cases Are Based on Express Contracts and Cannot Be Brought On Implied Contract Theories Like Quantum Meruit

Quantum meruit is not a viable theory for credit card plaintiffs because it is an implied contact theory where an express contract already exists. In addition, in order to establish a quantum meruit claim, a plaintiff must establish that it provided services or goods directly to the defendant.

Vortt Exploration Co. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 787 S.W.2d 942, 944 (Tex. 1990)

Edited November 8, 2012 by texasrocker

[texasrocker]

Add that you hereby certify that you sent the plaintiff's attorney via USPS certified mail (his/her name, address, date) a true and correct copy of Defendant's Original Answer, Plea to the Jurisdiction and Special Exceptions. Sign it and print your name, address, and phone number.

You should have three separate pages- one for your answer, one for the Plea to the Jurisdiction and one (or two if it is too much for one page) for the Special Exceptions.

The judge may schedule a hearing for the Plea to the Jurisdiction and Special Exceptions. There is a good chance the AA attorney will try to talk you into a settlement before the hearing but don't give in. No matter what they say do not agree to give them one cent.

Edited November 8, 2012 by texasrocker

[Texas Grandma]

Thank you so much Texasrocker! I will go through your answer thuroghly and type up my respsonses.

If you do not mind, I would like you to proof them. I don't want to make any mistakes.

Do I need to send in the answers to the admit or deny section at the same time that I file the response to the claims of account stated etc?

I do not have access to everything right now, but I can list all of the questions for you later if you like.

Thanks again!

[Texas Grandma]

Sorry, I see now where you answered me about the questions.

Please forgive me. It has been a long morning. My husbands company work truck was stolen this morning and it has all of his tools in it. The companies insurance does not cover his tools, just the truck. Between this and now the truck, I feel like I am pulled to the edge!

[texasrocker]

The set of admissions that you are allowed 50 days to answer are to be sent to the AA attorney not the court. Just answer each of them with "Denied" except the ones that may ask you to admit your name and address or that you are not currently serving in the military.

Be sure to send them via certified mail.

Personally I would wait to send that to them until after seeing what transpires from the Plea to the Jurisdiction and Special Exceptions.

Have your answers ready and wait until 40 days or so have passed if they have not dropped the suit by then.

[BrunoTheJDBkiller]

How about the borrowing statute? This could be well beyond BofA's 3 yr. SOL.

First missed payment in Oct. of 08, made other payments but not sure when that was. Account was never brought current.

According to this the account was in default in November 2008 and never came out. Partial payments do not correct default.

[Texas Grandma]

I thought that the sol would be 4 years according to Texas law? I looked at my cr and the first record of being behind by 30 days was in Oct of 08.

The sol start and stop are so confusing!

[BV80]

How about the borrowing statute? This could be well beyond BofA's 3 yr. SOL.

First missed payment in Oct. of 08, made other payments but not sure when that was. Account was never brought current.

According to this the account was in default in November 2008 and never came out. Partial payments do not correct default.

The SOL in that case could depend upon the wording in a state law. If the law states that the SOL is based upon the date of last payment or that a payment restart the SOL, it wouldn't matter if that payment was $1.

[BV80]

I thought that the sol would be 4 years according to Texas law? I looked at my cr and the first record of being behind by 30 days was in Oct of 08.

The sol start and stop are so confusing!

Did the cc statement AA provided show any payments? If not, let's see what they can provide in discovery.

One of their causes of action is "Account Stated". I believe they're going to have to provide statements that showed you made payments.

[Texas Grandma]

It is my understanding that in the state of Texas that the sol starts when the action first accrues. The attorney general of Texas states that an example of when the action accrues is with the first missed payment.

I have seen postings by lawyers in Texas that say on their sites that any payment that you make restarts that sol no matter how little the payment may be.

I think I could argue the sol in this case if I were an attorney and more familiar with this whole procedure. But I think I would be shooting myself in the foot if I were not successful because the burden of proof would be on me.

I think I can beat this with out that, so that is what I think I should do.

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

[BrunoTheJDBkiller]

Texasrocker can verify this right or wrong, but it appears that Texas has what they call a "borrowing statute." That means that you are allowed to apply the SOL of the creditor's home state, which in this case is Delaware, 3 years. That would mean the debt is time barred and cannot be sued upon. It would be subject to a dismissal, and an FDCPA violation. The cardholder agreement should define default and when it occurs, not the state statutes. Traditionally, default occurs when you fail to make a required payment. In your case you say you paid in Oct 2008, but made no required payments after that. Required means the full payment. Failure to do so puts the account in default. The only way to get it current again is to make all past due payments. Partial payments do not bring the account current. They can sue you any time they want after the account goes into default. Otherwise, you could send them a dollar a month and they couldn't do anything about it. The key date is the incident that triggered the default. Here, it would be November 2008. If they filed suit after Nov 2011 they are out of luck. Courts will not make for you a contract you did not make for yourself by changing the terms of default according to some statute. The statute would only apply if there was no contract setting forth terms, and the court had nothing else to rely upon. That's my opinion, and I could be wrong.

[BV80]

Here's 2 TX appeals courts that have ruled that a breach of contract is based upon the date of last payment.

The statute of limitations on a claim for debt based on breach of contract is four years from the time the cause of action accrues. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 16.004(a) (Vernon 2002). Williams made his last payment on October 15, 2001, and this action commenced on August 19, 2005, which is within the four-year window. Williams v. UNI. CCR PART. ASSIG., CITIBANK, 264 SW 3d 231 - Tex: Court of Appeals 2008.

Instead, we conclude that, at the earliest, the date of the last payment (September 15, 2006) determined the accrual date for purposes of the statute of limitations. DODEKA, LLC v. Campos, Tex: Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2012.

[Texas Grandma]

Thank you Bruno! I am going to look into that. Hopefully texasrocker can shed some light on this as well.

[texasrocker]

Texas does have some sort of a borrowing statute but it has more to do with someone moving to (or out of) the state during the conflict that resulted in a lawsuit being filed. Texas considers SOL "procedural law" so they do not bring in the SOL's of other states even if there is a choice of law provision. States that allow that most likely view SOL as "substantive law."

As far as I know the SOL does indeed start when the last payment was made.

I do not recommend using SOL as an affirmative defense unless you are absolutely positive that the SOL has expired. Instead I would throw it in during discovery, "Admit that the last payment on the alleged account that is the subject of this lawsuit was made before <specific date exactly four years before the date the suit was filed>"

Edited November 9, 2012 by texasrocker

[Texas Grandma]

So I am now writing up my answers to the petition. Quick question texasrocker.

As I am writing this do I have to deny each thing that is listed in each paragraph?

For instance, the first paragraph under facts says this:

This suit is a debt related to a credit account issued by creditor BoA. The credit account was for ---, and assigned account number xxx000. --- incurred a balance on the credit account and failed to pay causing the credit account to be charged off on or around (date). The post charge off principal amount due, with credits for off sets, payment and adjustment is $---. Thereafter, BoA assigned the credit account to AA. --- with a ssn of xxx1234 is the defendant in this suit and can be served with process at the address below:

Address listed.

Do I address every single thing that is stated? Would I answer paragraph one this way?

1. Defendant denies that this is a debt related to credit account issued by creditor Boa as listed in paragraph one of the Plaintiff's Petition.

2. Defendant denies that the credit account was for (herself) as listed in paragraph one of the Plaintiff's Petition..

3. Defendant denies that the account number was xxx000 as listed in paragraph one of the Plaintiff's Petition.

4. Defendant denies that she incurred a balance on said account as listed in paragraph one of the Plaintiff's Petition.

5. Defendant denies that she failed to pay said balance as listed in paragraph one of the Plaintiff's Petition.

6. Defendant denies that she caused the credit account to be charged off on or around (date) as listed in paragraph one of the Plaintiff's Petition.

7. Defendant denies that the post charge off principal amount due, with credits for off sets, payments and adjustments is $xxxx as listed in paragraph one of the Plaintiff's Petition.

8. Defendant denies that BoA assigned the credit account to AA as listed in paragraph one of the Plaintiff's Petition.

9. Defendant admits that she can be served with process at the address below as listed in paragraph one of the Plaintiff's Petition.

I ask because I read somewhere that if you do not answer each thing, the plaintiff can say that you admit it because you did not answer.

And what about the ssn? Should I admit? They do not have the whole number listed, so I don't know that it is mine, correct? So should I deny?

Or do you just list one answer for all of the things in the paragraph, such as

Defendant denies all allegations in paragraph one of the Plaintiff's Petition.

Sorry to ask so many questions, I just want to make sure to get it right. Thanks!

[BrunoTheJDBkiller]

For her answer to the Plaintiff's Complaint, the Defendant answers as follows; The Defendant in the above titled action expressly and generally denies all of the allegations of the Plaintiff's Complaint, and leaves the Plaintiff to its proof.

[Texas Grandma]

So this is what it will look like with nothing else?

CAUSE NO. ----------------

ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC IN THE JUSTIC COURT

Plaintiff,

vs. PRECINCT 0 PLACE 0

ME

Defendant(s) MY COUNTY, TEXAS

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Comes now the Defendant, ----------------------------------, and files her Answer in the above-entitled matter and in support thereof states as follows:

The Defendant in the above titled action expressly and generally denies, pursuant to Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, each and every, all and singular, of the allegations of the Plaintiff's Complaint, and leaves the Plaintiff to its proof.

Of course this will all be centered and formatted just like the documents that I received.